AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
In this instant Company Appeal, where the Appellant puts a challenge to the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2024, questioning the propriety of the Impugned Order passed in IA No. 1832 of 2023 as it was preferred in CP(IB) No. 329/7/HDB/2020.
The Appeal is accompanied with an application being IA No.1155/2024 for seeking condonation of 12 days of delay, another application being IA No.1156/2024, where the Appellant has sought a condonation of 75 days of delay chanced in refiling. As far as the application pertaining to the Condonation of delay of 12 days, which has chanced in the filing of the Appeal is concerned, we after having gone through the reasons given in Para C(I), C(II) and C(III) of the Application, coupled with the fact that the order itself was uploaded on 07.03.2024, the delay of 12 days seems to be reasonably explained. Accordingly, IA No.1155/2024 would stand disposed of, and the delay of 12 days would stand condoned.
As far as IA No.1156/2024, where the Appellant has sought condonation of 75 days of delay in refiling the Company Appeal, the same has been vehemently opposed by the counsel for the Respondent on the ground that according to the report, which has been submitted by the Registry there have been delays in different stages and the reasons given are not sufficient to explain the delay. But however, taking a pragmatic view and owing to the reasons given in the Application, the 75 days of delay which has chanced in refiling would hereby stand condoned. Accordingly, IA No.1156/2024 would stand disposed of.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties with their consent, on the merits of the Appeal. Primarily, the sole argument of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, while questioning the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2024, passed in IA No.1832/2023, is on the ground that the decision on the said application of 27.02.2024, has been taken in the absence of his counsel and the application was unilaterally allowed with a direction to pay the amount within one week and submit a compliance report.
In fact, this argument extended by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the order was passed exparte and without hearing the Appellant as the counsel was not available on the said date is being vehemently opposed by the Respondent Counsel while drawing the attention of this Appellate Tribunal to the order passed by the Tribunal on 03.01.2024, wherein the Tribunal while passing an order on IA No.1832/2023, has passed a detailed order, which is extracted hereunder:-
“IA(IBC) 1832/2023
Learned Counsel Mr. GP Yash Vardhan, for applicant and Learned Counsel Smt. Padmaja, for respondent present physically. According to the learned counsel for the respondent the direction of this Tribunal dated 15.12.2023 to pay the amount which is payable under the arbitration proceedings Nos 38/2021 and 10/2021 has not been fully paid. As the interest payable in arbitration award no 10/2021 is partly paid and a memo showing the amount outstanding also have been filed. However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the amount claimed in the memo is not correct and there may be a short fall in payment of interest for few months only and the parties will sort out the same. Learned counsel Smt Padmaja, for respondent states that the respondent is prepared to pay interest from 21.06.2021 till date of the payment at 9% per annum. With these directions this IA is disposed of by giving liberty to the applicant to re-agitate its claim if the same is not settled. For compliances, matter adjourned to 01.02.2024”.
If the said order is taken into consideration, in fact, it was an adjudication made on IA No.1832/2023, on merits which has not been challenged. If that is the case, an application which has already been decided on 03.01.2024, cannot be procedurally expected to be redecided by an order of 27.02.2024, which has been now put to challenge by the Appellant. In fact, whatsoever the logic has been assigned by the Appellant by putting a challenge to the order of 27.02.2024, as passed in IA No.1832/2023, seems to be untenable in the light of the earlier order passed on IA No.1832/2023 on 03.01.2024, where the Tribunal has assigned reasons for passing of the order on the IA No.1832/2023. Thus, the entire contention of the Appellant as raised in the Appeal seems to be untenable and would be barred by estoppel and acquiescence. Hence, the Appeal lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.